Order
.. 1 ..

Bail Application No. 20/2022
CNR No. MHCC02-000359-2022
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE,
(CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988)
FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2022
IN
ACB REMAND APPLICATION NO. 21 OF 2022
Shri. Anil Madanji Jadhav,
Age:52 years, Occupation:Service,
Residing at Room No. 11, Y-1 Building,
Government Officers’ Quarters,
Ali Yavar Jung Road, Bandra (East),
Mumbai-400 051.

)
)
)
)
)
)
Applicant/Orig. Accd.

)
)
)
Respdt./Complainant
Versus.
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of A.C.B., Mumbai
vide C. R. No. 1/2022).

Mr. Niranjan Mundargi, Ld. Advocate for the applicant/orig. accused.
Mr. Pankaj Chavan, Ld. A.P.P. for the State/Respondent/ACB.
CORAM:
H.H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE
UNDER P.C. ACT, 1988
SHRI. S. P. NAIK-NIMBALKAR,
(C.R. No. 46).

DATED:
12th January, 2022.

:ORAL ORDER:
The applicant/original accused Shri. Anil Madanji Jadhav is
..2..
prosecuted for the offence punishable u/sec. 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.

He is in Judicial Custody (J.C.) since
10/01/2022. The present application is filed by the applicant/accused
u/sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Cr.P.C.” for
short) for releasing him on bail.
2.

Brief facts pertaining to the prosecution case can be stated
as follows :a.

The first informant Mr. Deepak Shrichand Tekchandani is a
partner in Tender Skin International Cosmetology Academy.

He had
applied for approval to conduct various courses in the said academy
with the office of Maharashtra State Skill Development Society
(‘M.S.S.D.S.’ for short).

The applicant/accused is the Chairman of
M.S.S.D.S. The first informant was granted approval in the month of
July 2021, but for final approval, the applicant/accused demanded bribe
of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the first informant.
b.

The verification procedure of demand was carried on by the
Anti-corruption Bureau on receipt of the complaint. On 07/12/2021,
the first informant went to the ACB office and submitted a written
complaint.

On its basis, the verification was done on 09/12/2021,
13/12/2021,
14/12/2021,
20/12/2021
&
29/12/2021.

The
prosecution relied on the demand verification dated 14/12/2021. On
14/12/2021, in the office of applicant/accused, during discussion the
applicant/accused had demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- by showing five fingers
of his right hand in order to grant final approval for the first informant’s
said academy. The first informant said that “five is very big”. To which
the applicant/accused replied that “five is not big” and further said that
“it is a big opportunity”.
c.

On 04/01/2022, the first informant had messaged the
applicant/accused on his phone saying “Happiness Morning”. To which
at around 11.26 a.m., the first informant had received a whats-app call
..3..
from
the
applicant/accused.

He
was
called
to
meet
the
applicant/accused in his office. Thereafter it was informed to the ACB
and accordingly arrangement for the pre-trap was done.
informant did not have Rs. 5,00,000/-.
arranged
Rs.

12,000/-
from
his
The first
The first informant had
bank
account
and
ACB
Officer/Investigating Officer Smt. Supriya K. Nate had arranged Rs.
4,88,000/- fake toy currency notes as bribe amount.
d.

The first informant and panch Shri. Rajendra Raut went to
the office of applicant/accused and the Trap Unit had surrounded
nearby the office.

The first informant had removed three envelopes
containing of total Rs. 5,00,000/- cash from his left side pant’s pocket
and kept it on the table.

The applicant/accused had picked those
envelopes and kept it in the left drawer of table. The first informant
upon asking about the final approval on the pending file, the
applicant/accused had informed him that the final approval of the
pending file of first informant will be done till Friday. Thereafter the
first informant came out of the office and gave missed call as a signal on
the phone of Police Officer, as per plan. Thereafter immediately the Trap
Unit of ACB raided the office and arrested the applicant/accused and
took him into custody along with the bribe money.
e.

On 05/01/2022, the FIR bearing C.R. No. 1/2022 came to
be registered with the ACB, Mumbai against the applicant/accused for
the offence punishable u/sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. Subsequently during the search at the office of applicant/accused
and at his house, the property pertaining to Rs. 2,28,100/- cash, two
laptops with chargers, twenty-six pen-drives, four hard-disks, Rs.
79,63,500/- cash, 1.572 kg. of gold & jewellery and 1.500 kg. of silver,
totalling to worth of Rs. 1,73,34,765/- respectively, came to be seized by
the ACB.

..4..
3.

The applicant/accused was produced before this Court on
05/01/2022 and remanded to Police Custody till 07/01/2022, which
was again extended till 10/01/2022 and as he was tested Covid positive
during the Police Custody, he was taken into Judicial Custody on
10/01/2022.
4.

The grounds on which the bail is preferred by the applicant/
accused may be listed in short as follows :a.

The applicant/accused is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in this case. There is no substantial material or independent
witness to support the case of prosecution. The verification was carried
out on 14/12/2021 and thereafter about 22 days’ later, the alleged trap
was laid. There is no explanation/justification pertaining to the delay of
22 days in filing the FIR, caused by the ACB from the date of verification
and later suddenly on 04/01/2022, they laid a trap on the
applicant/accused, which suggests malafides on the part of ACB.
b.

It is further submitted that the ACB has virtually completed
the investigation and seized all the alleged material, which they
purportedly relied upon against the applicant/accused in the alleged
commission of crime.

The further custody of applicant/accused is
unwarranted. Sufficient Police Custody Remand (P.C.R.) of six days has
already been given to the applicant/accused.

The applicant/accused
undertakes and is ready & willing to co-operate with the ACB in
investigation, if released on bail.
c.

The applicant/accused has no criminal antecedents and is
residing on the given address and has roots in Mumbai & India. The
applicant/accused is 52 years old and came to be tested Covid positive
during the P.C.R. He needs to be home quarantined and he will cooperate with the ACB in investigation once the home quarantined period
is over.

The applicant/accused needs proper medical treatment and
hence, he be released on bail. The investigation is virtually over and the
..5..
applicant/accused has co-operated the Investigating Agency during his
P.C.R., therefore there is no further need of custodial interrogation. The
applicant/accused will not abscond, tamper the evidence or influence
the witnesses, if released on bail. He is a reputed person in the society
having family of wife and children, who are dependent on him. Hence,
on all these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant/accused be released
on bail.
5.

Notice was issued to the State. Ld. A.P.P. Mr. Pankaj Chavan
has appeared for the State/ACB and submitted the reply of Investigating
Officer Smt. Supriya K. Nate dated 12/01/2022.
6.

As per the reply of prosecution, they have objected the bail
application of applicant/accused on the grounds as follows :a.

The investigation is at preliminary stage and detail
investigation is yet to be done.
educated
and
high-handed
The applicant/accused is highly
person,
holding
important
post
in
Maharashtra Government and therefore, the magnitude of this offence is
very large. Therefore, if the applicant/accused is released on bail, it
would
adversely
affect
the
investigation
in
progress.

The
applicant/accused will pressurize the first informant and direct
witnesses of this crime, if released on bail.
b.

During the house search of applicant/accused, total amount
of Rs. 79,63,500/- cash, 1.572 kg. of gold & ornaments worth Rs.
74,81,745/-, silver ornaments of 7.500 kg. worth Rs. 4,65,000/- and
total property along with household furniture worth Rs. 1,73,34,765/- is
found. So also in the office of applicant/accused, an amount of Rs.
2,28,100/- is found. No explanation about this seized amount is given
by the applicant/accused during P.C.R.
c.

The important documents pertaining to this crime are not
..6..
seized from the office of applicant/accused. There is possibility that he
would destroy this evidence, if released on bail.

The details of this
offence are yet to be collected from the office of applicant/accused and
if he is released on bail, he would influence the other public servants.
The applicant/accused may flee from Mumbai and would not be
available for further investigation. The statements of witnesses are yet
to be recorded and he may pressurize them. Hence, it is submitted to
reject the bail application of applicant/accused on all these grounds.

Submissions :7.

Heard both the sides.

8.

Ld.

Advocate
Mr.

Niranjan
Mundargi
for
the
applicant/accused has submitted along with the lines of his
contentions in the bail application. He has additionally submitted
that
the
investigation
is
not
in
primitive
stage.

The
applicant/accused is under suspension, therefore there is no
connection of the applicant/accused with his office at present. The
applicant/accused is ready to undertake and comply with any
condition including not to visit his office and also to attend the
concerned Police Station, once his quarantine period is over.
It is further submitted by Ld. Advocate Mr. Niranjan
Mundargi for the applicant/accused that the cash amount and the
articles, allegedly recovered, are not connected with the prime
allegation of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Till today, no offence other than Section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, is invoked against the applicant/accused and
for applicability of Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, preliminary enquiry is necessary to be done and the
applicant/accused would join the preliminary enquiry after his
..7..

quarantine period.
It is also submitted by Ld. Advocate Mr. Niranjan
Mundargi for the applicant/accused that this is not the case of
disproportionate assets and so far as the allegations in the complaint
are concerned, investigation is over and no purpose would be served
by keeping the applicant/accused in jail hereinafter. On all these
grounds, he has prayed to release the applicant/accused on bail.
9.

Per-contra, Ld. A.P.P. Mr. Pankaj Chavan for the
State/ACB has submitted that the quantum of cash amount as well
as gold & silver ornaments and the electronic gadgets recovered
from the house as well as the office of applicant/accused, is very
large.

There is no explanation given by the applicant/accused
pertaining to the seizure.

The entire facts pertaining to the
commission of this offence, are not yet revealed. The documents
are not entirely collected. They are associated with the office of
applicant/accused, where he was the Head of Office. Therefore,
there is every possibility that he may influence the investigation in
progress and would flee from the justice.

Hence on all these
grounds, Ld. A.P.P. Mr. Pankaj Chavan for the State/ACB has prayed
to reject the bail application of applicant/accused.
10.

The Investigating Officer Smt. Supriya K. Nate is present
today before the Court along with the case-diary and has also
submitted in tune with the submissions of Ld. A.P.P. Mr. Pankaj
Chavan for the State/ACB. The gist of submissions of prosecution is
that the investigation is in bud and it may be hampered by release
of applicant/accused on bail.

..8..

11.

In view of the above rival facts, the following points
arise for my consideration and I have given my findings against each
of them for the reasons recorded below :Points
Findings
(1)
Whether the applicant/accused is entitled
to be released on bail u/sec. 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
.. In the negative
(2)
What order ?

.. As per final order
REASONS
As to Point No. 1 :12.

I have perused the bail application as well as the case-
papers produced by the Investigating Officer Smt. Supriya K. Nate. I
have also given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of
both the sides.
13.

While deciding the bail application, it is well settled that
the Court would not endeavor to decide the guilt or innocence of
the accused for the offences. However, the complicity of accused
pending the investigation, so also considering the nature and gravity
of offence vis-a-vis the criminal antecedents of accused and
possibility to influence the investigation, are some of the factors,
which would have to be considered while deciding the bail
application.
14.

The F.I.R. dated 05/01/2022, the verification, pre-trap &
post-trap panchanamas as well as the investigation papers suggest
that prima-facie there are reasonable grounds to believe that the
..9..

accusation against the applicant/accused is well-founded for the
offence u/sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The
case of demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the
applicant/accused, who is a public servant, from the first informant
is detailed and substantiated in the police papers prima-facie.
15.

The nature and gravity of offence is very large. The
demand of bribe amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- and acceptance of the
same by the applicant/accused is seen through the police papers
prima-facie.
16.

Ld.

Advocate
Mr.

Nirnajan
Mundargi
for
the
applicant/accused is right while submitting that no case of
disproportionate assets u/sec. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, has been applied by the police against the
applicant/accused as of now. However the large quantum of seizure
of several gold & silver ornaments and electronic gadgets including
hard-disks, pen-drives & laptops, is necessary to the considered. So
also the seizure of cash amount to the tune of Rs. 79,63,500/-, is also
necessary to be considered.
17.

The investigation at this juncture is not completed. As per
the Remand Report dated 10/01/2022, it was mentioned that the
applicant/accused has tested Covid positive and was admitted to St.
George Hospital, therefore, he was taken into Judicial Custody. This
would not mean that the entire investigation with the applicant/accused
in this crime is over. This is so, because the magnitude of offence is
necessary to be taken into consideration.

..10..
18.

It is repeatedly mentioned by the prosecution on record that
no explanation pertaining to the amount, which was accepted by the
applicant/accused, is furnished by him. Therefore the nexus of accepted
amount with any other persons, if any and further facts, if any, of the
demanded and accepted amount, are yet to be unrevealed. This can
only be done with the help of applicant/accused and he being in
custody, without having an opportunity to influence the ongoing
investigation. So also, verification of entire electronic gadgets and data
therein, is necessary to be done. It can not be lost sight of that the
applicant/accused is holding an important government service position
as “Chairman of the M.S.S.D.S.” and he is empowered to take decisions,
which would impact the society at large.
19.

There is no medical certificate produced at this juncture
before me, which would show that the applicant/accused is unfit for any
further custody.

The submission of applicant/accused is that he is
advised “home quarantine” and after the period of home quarantine, he
can join the Investigating Agency for further investigation. Therefore on
medical grounds, it can not be said that the applicant/accused needs to
be released on bail for further medical treatment, etc.

At the most
considering the medical grounds raised by the applicant/accused,
separate directions in this regard can be given to the Jail Authorities.
20.

Thus, to sum-up the entire discussion, the nature and
gravity of offence is serious. The investigation so also the interrogation
with the applicant/accused, are not concluded.
offence is very large.

The magnitude of
The release of applicant/accused on bail may
hamper the investigation in progress.

Considering his high-handed
position with specific reference to the submission of prosecution that
none of the witnesses from the office of applicant/accused have yet
tendered any document, his release on bail may hamper the ongoing
..11..
investigation.

Therefore,
considering
the
complicity
of
applicant/accused with this crime and as the investigation is in bud, at
this stage, I am not inclined to accept the bail plea of the
applicant/accused. Resultantly, I answer Point No. 1 in the negative
and with regard to Point No. 2, I proceed to pass the following
order :ORDER
1.
Bail Application No. 20/2022 in ACB Remand Application
No. 21/2022 (C.R. No. 1/2022) filed by the applicant/original
accused Shri. Anil Madanji Jadhav is hereby rejected.

2.
Issue letter to the Superintendent, Arthur Road
Central Prison, Mumbai to provide adequate, sufficient and
immediate medical help to the applicant/accused, if he
complaints of ill-health hereinafter and to follow the strict Covid19 treatment protocol, as advised by the Medical Officer.
3.

Bail Application No. 20/2022 in ACB Remand Application
No. 21/2022 stands disposed of accordingly.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
Date:-12/01/2022
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
Sent to Dept. on
:
:
:
:
(S. P. NAIK-NIMBALKAR)
Special Judge under P.C. Act,
City Sessions Court for Greater Bombay
at Mumbai.

12/01/2022
13/01/2022
13/01/2022
..12..

CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
13/01/2022 at 4:07 p.m.
UPLOADED DATE AND TIME
Gitalaxmi R. Mohite
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge
(With Court Room No.

H.H.J. Shri. S. P. Naik-Nimbalkar
(Court Room No. 46)
)
Date
of
Pronouncement
Judgment/Order
of 12/01/2022
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on
13/01/2022
Judgment/Order uploaded on
13/01/2022